Erich Fromm (1900–1980), born into a Jewish family in Frankfurt, Germany, experienced the traumatic impact of two world wars and developed a profound understanding of the psychological scars war inflicts on both individuals and societies (Ahmad et al., 2023). The issue of war deeply influenced Fromm’s thought, especially his perplexity over why war continues to exist and why humans, despite yearning for peace, often support war (Clark and Friedman, 2015). In Escape from Freedom, Fromm explored the roots of fascism from a social-psychological perspective, revealing the role of psychological factors in war and violence (Fromm, 1941, p. 5). He argued that war is not merely a political or economic issue, but is driven by deep psychological mechanisms, particularly an irrational dependence on violence and power.

In the 1930s, Fromm conducted an empirical study in Germany to investigate the working class’s attitudes towards war. The responses to the question of “how to prevent a new world war” revealed fundamental differences in people’s views on war (Boehnke et al., 2005). Some conservatives believed war was an inherent part of human nature, a necessary expression of national power; fascists saw war as an inevitable aspect of social Darwinism; socialists argued that war was a product of capitalism’s inherent nature, and it could only be eliminated through social reform; while liberals advocated for the elimination of war through education, progress, and international cooperation (Fromm, 1941, p. 12). These differing perspectives show that the roots of war lie not only in material or political conditions but are deeply driven by psychological factors (Barbiero and Berto, 2021).

Fromm maintained that preventing war cannot rely solely on rational or material analysis, but requires psychological intervention to dissect the inner violent impulses of individuals and groups. He clearly asserted that violence and destructiveness are not innate human instincts but products of specific psychological and social conditions (Fromm, 1973, p. 4). This perspective provides a crucial psychological foundation for understanding the irrational dynamics of war.

From a humanistic perspective, Fromm argued that war and violence are not innate human instincts but are distorted responses that arise when humans’ basic needs are inadequately met (Fromm, 1947, p.65). Fromm posited that humans not only have basic survival needs but also face five existential needs due to the “dichotomy of existence” (e.g., life and death, individualization and isolation): connection, transcendence, grounding, identity, and orientation. When these needs are satisfied in positive ways (e.g., through love, creativity, and rational self-actualization), they promote individual happiness and social peace, fostering positive forces such as life-enhancement, solidarity, justice, and creativity (Ryff and Singer, 2008). Conversely, when these needs are inadequately addressed or are met in regressive ways (e.g., necrophilia, sadism, destructiveness, greed, narcissism), they can give rise to harmful tendencies that become the psychological roots of conflict and violence (Fromm, 1973, p. 6).

In his 1973 work The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, Fromm criticized the notion that humans have an inherent destructive impulse, calling this idea “obviously absurd.” He explicitly rejected Freud’s concept of the “death instinct” (Fromm, 1973, p. 4). Unlike Freud, Fromm distinguished between two types of aggression: one is biologically adaptive, such as “reactive aggression” arising from self-defense, which is a common phenomenon in nature; the other is “malignant aggression,” unique to humans and rooted in individual character and social pathology (Fromm, 1973, p. 9–10). He further noted that these forms of aggression are closely tied to the unique conditions of human existence.

One of Fromm’s key contributions is his profound analysis of the “inner tension” of human existence. Humans are part of nature, needing to satisfy basic biological needs, yet they can transcend nature through self-awareness, rationality, and imagination (Han, 2022). He frequently referenced the fundamental duality of human existence: “Humans can never escape two conflicting tendencies: one that leads them away from the maternal origin—moving from an animalistic state of existence toward a human state, toward freedom; the other leads them back to the maternal origin, back to nature, back to certainty and security” (Fromm, 1955, p. 34). This conflict between freedom (growth, individuality) and belonging (security, unity) constitutes the core tension in human psychological structure.

Due to the lack of the instinctive mechanisms and physiological adaptability that other species possess, humans are more vulnerable and anxious than other animals (Fromm, 1941, p. 36–39). Fromm argued that human infants are “the most helpless of animals,” requiring far more care than other species; adults, on the other hand, possess the ability to transcend animal instincts with imagination and rationality, allowing them to be aware of dangers that have not yet occurred, living in abstract concepts, history, and the future, rather than just in the present moment. Thus, humans tend to fear symbolic threats or uncertainties about the future, not just direct physical threats (Rios et al., 2018).

Furthermore, Fromm observed that humans tend to construct ideologies and self-identity, linking them to abstract values such as nationality, religion, ethnicity, and political ideologies. Attacks on these values are often experienced as attacks on one’s core self. This capacity makes human aggression more intense and destructive than the innate aggression of animals (Van Hiel et al., 2020).

In his exploration of human aggression and destructiveness, Fromm classified malignant (destructive) aggression into three main types: sadistic aggression, narcissistic (or collective narcissistic) aggression, and necrophilic aggression. These destructive personality types each possess distinct psychological structures, social causes, and philosophical foundations, and manifest in different forms in modern society. A deeper understanding of these types helps to uncover the psychological dynamics behind war and violence, providing valuable insights for the pursuit of peace (Drožđek et al., 2020).

In peace studies, the distinction between “negative peace” and “positive peace” is a foundational concept (Galtung, 1969). Fromm emphasizes that peace is not merely the absence of violence and war but also includes positive states within social structures and interpersonal relationships. “Negative peace” refers to the absence of open violent conflict, with no wars or armed confrontations. In contrast, “positive peace” signifies a state of harmonious cooperation, justice, and comprehensive human development, characterized by harmony between individuals, between humanity and nature, as well as the full development of rationality and love (Bayerlein et al., 2024). This concept aligns closely with the Hebrew term “shalom” in the Old Testament, which refers to a state of wholeness, completeness, and well-being. Therefore, positive peace is not just the cessation of hostilities or the end of war but an environment that fulfills human needs and fosters mutual support and trust (Fromm, 1962, p. 20).

Fromm argues that only positive peace constitutes sustainable peace. Even if a society is in a state of non-conflict (i.e., “negative peace”), if it remains filled with injustice, oppression, or structural violence, it will eventually lead to the eruption of new conflicts (Hirschfeld, 2017).

Although Fromm advocates for positive peace, he also recognizes the urgency of his time, especially the destructive threat posed by nuclear weapons (Albulescu, 2023). In this context, Fromm argues that the primary step toward achieving positive peace is to ensure “negative peace”—the cessation of hostilities, as its alternative could be total destruction. As he stated, “Given the threat of total destruction, we no longer have time to wait for humanity and society to undergo profound transformations to achieve peace” (Fromm, 1962, p. 20).

During the Cold War, superpowers maintained a fragile peace based on the principle of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD), a negative peace grounded in threats (Wangh, 1986). Fromm expressed deep skepticism about this approach, arguing that living under the shadow of nuclear annihilation would have severe psychological effects on society. He noted, “Living under the constant threat of destruction for long periods will have a significant psychological impact on most people—it generates fear, hostility, indifference, rigidity, and a disregard for everything we hold dear” (Fromm, 1962, p. 23). While nuclear deterrence may temporarily prevent war, it erodes humanity’s fundamental understanding of peace. Fromm warned that defending freedom in this way might ultimately lead to the loss of freedom: “If we truly argue that our goal is to preserve freedom—to prevent humanity from becoming the vassal of an authoritarian state—we must realize that, regardless of whether nuclear deterrence succeeds or not, this freedom will be lost” (Fromm, 1962, p. 23).

Fromm emphasized that the greatest danger of unstable peace based on deterrence is the loss of human vitality and hope (Fromm, 1994, p.16). When society’s focus is excessively directed toward fear and threats, people neglect the importance of positive ideals and human development. He stated, “Freedom, individuality, and faith increasingly become empty slogans; creativity declines; our vision of a better life no longer transcends the ever-expanding consumer desires” (Fromm, 1968, p. 8). This spiritual numbness and degradation hinder the construction of a better future.

To meet these challenges, Fromm advocates cultivating a constructive social horizon. Even if a fully harmonious world remains distant, we should begin, here and now, to build solidarity, moral courage, and an affirmative outlook on peace (Hindle, 2025). In Fromm’s framework, hope constitutes the psychological and moral pillar of peace. In The Revolution of Hope, he calls for a “revolution of hope” in the face of catastrophic anxiety (Fromm, 1968, p. 9–10). He further argues that “history often shows that even an idea without the support of power can possess unexpected strength (Fromm, 1950, p.78). We need a new attitude—neither sentimental nor irrational—that nonetheless affirms the reality of possibility.” Hope is not fantasy, but confidence that human beings can change their conditions despite uncertainty. “Hope is the spiritual accompaniment of life and growth” (Fromm, 1968, p. 7).

Absent hope, individuals lapse into despair or numbness—especially when confronted with war, climate change, or entrenched inequality. Contemporary public discourse often privileges fear over hope; Fromm cautions that overemphasizing catastrophic narratives can paralyze collective agency. Peace psychology should therefore take hope as a central reference point, mobilizing collective action and enabling constructive peace-oriented shifts (Roque-Hernández, 2022).

Fromm also warns against an ascetic ideology increasingly visible in modern societies. In response to climate change and resource constraints, some propose “degrowth” or severe austerity as the sole path forward (Fromm, 1964, p. 16). While acknowledging the need for restraint and sustainability, Fromm argues for an inspiring, humane vision of the future—a warmer, more human-centered trajectory of growth. As he puts it, “We should adopt a perspective that emphasizes development in a different and more human way” (Fromm, 1976, p. 143). For Fromm, genuine positive peace is not merely the cessation of war, but the creation of social conditions in which human potential can flourish and life is no longer driven by fear, greed, or domination.

Rapid advances in science and technology have transformed social life and, with it, the landscape of challenges and opportunities for peace (Kühn and Williams, 2025). Fromm consistently underscored a dual effect: technology can enhance human welfare and help reduce drivers of war—by alleviating scarcity or illuminating the psychology of aggression—yet unregulated progress may outpace moral development, generating new forms of alienation, indifference, and destructive power. In The Revolution of Hope—subtitled Toward a Humanized Technology—he argues that technology must be humanized, i.e., subordinated to human needs and values; otherwise it risks facilitating new wars rather than peace (Fromm, 1968).

Already in the mid-twentieth century, Fromm identified dangers that are even more salient today. He warned against celebrating technology as an end in itself while marginalizing the human, a stance akin to contemporary “techno-utopianism” or technophilia—the belief that complex social problems (or even “unmanageable” persons) can be solved by high-tech weapons or automated systems (Talmadge, 2019). Fromm locates this attitude in a necrophilous orientation—an attraction to the mechanical and inanimate that goes hand in hand with indifference to life (Fromm, 1973, p. 365). He also diagnosed an unhealthy split of affect and reason: “a mild but chronic schizophrenic state—a split between feeling and thinking”—whose consequence is not only the growth of hostility but a pervasive indifference to life; such indifference may be more dangerous than overt destructiveness because it underwrites the willingness to destroy others and oneself (Fromm, 1968, p. 53). As emotional numbing intensifies—when killing is equated with “pressing a button” or war is consumed through screens—individuals become more likely to perpetrate or tolerate atrocities. This numbing threatens peace more than open hatred by rendering violence dehumanized, routinized, and increasingly virtualized (Montgomery and Nelson, 2025).

Fromm’s core claim is that durable peace is not merely the absence of war but the realization of inner freedom, reason, love, and empathy. Peace, in this view, is propelled by transformations in character structure: when individuals overcome fear, isolation, and destructive impulses, social harmony becomes possible (Wilson, 2024). This framework retains strong relevance amid today’s psychosocial crises shaped by technologically mediated alienation.

Contemporary violence extends beyond interstate warfare to terrorism, racial conflict, and discontent rooted in widening inequalities (Cheliotis, 2011). Fromm argues that violence is not a fixed human instinct but emerges when social environments and existential needs fall out of balance (Fromm, 1944). Such conflicts are amplified when unmet needs thwart communication and empathy, fracturing social bonds and fueling antagonism.

While modern technologies have expanded productivity and convenience, they also intensify emotional distancing and interpersonal estrangement. For Fromm, technology ought to serve basic human needs—freedom, love, creativity—rather than become an instrument of domination or alienation (Fromm, 1968, p. 61–62). In digital ecosystems, platform logics and information silos can attenuate empathic responsiveness and normalize “virtual” forms of hostility, reinforcing the very psychic conditions that undermine peace (Fromm, 1968, p. 53).

Accordingly, peace must be approached as a psychological as well as political project: cultivating inner freedom, affective attunement, and mature rationality is indispensable to counteracting destructive tendencies and to institutionalizing humane modes of conflict resolution. On this basis, Fromm’s humanistic peace psychology remains a timely resource for addressing the emotional numbing and social fragmentation characteristic of the technological age (McLaughlin, 2015).

The accelerating diffusion of artificial intelligence, big data analytics, unmanned systems, and automated weapons is reshaping social interaction and psychological functioning (Shneiderman, 2020). Technology is not intrinsically malign; it extends human needs and capacities. Yet Fromm warned that when technological development is uncoupled from human interior needs, it becomes a force of alienation (Fromm, 1971). In the digital era, such alienating effects are increasingly visible: pervasive social media, fragmented information flows, and the ubiquity of algorithmic systems strain affective life, moral judgment, and practical reason, allowing instrumental rationality to dominate and rendering relationships more objectified—conditions conducive to emotional blunting and social estrangement (Jobin et al., 2019).

Fromm’s notion of “humanized technology” offers a normative compass for peace psychology: socio-technical systems should be designed to serve core human needs—freedom, creativity, and love—rather than to intensify control or alienation (Kühn, 2019). Embedding these needs in technology governance can counteract psychosocial fragmentation and strengthen social cohesion (Floridi et al., 2018). The stakes are acute in domains such as AI-enabled and autonomous weapons, where dehumanized decision chains can normalize violence and mechanize warfare, dulling empathic and moral restraints (Fromm, 1973, p. 53). Accordingly, peace psychology should help specify ethical guardrails and psychosocial design criteria so that technological applications promote relational health and nonviolent problem solving (Hagendorff, 2020).

Humanizing technology also requires sustained attention to how systems shape affect, cognition, and moral perception. Education and policy should cultivate ethical responsibility and empathic competencies for life in digital environments, positioning technology as a tool for peacebuilding rather than a catalyst of division (Murad et al., 2024). This agenda entails not only technical regulation but also interventions at the level of psychological development and social institutions, thereby advancing a contemporary peace psychology capable of addressing technology-driven forms of alienation (Pizzi et al., 2021).

To advance peace psychology, interventions should be designed at three interlocking levels—individual psychology, social structures, and strategic policy orientation. At the individual level, Fromm foregrounds love and reason as core capacities for peace. In response to affective blunting and psychological alienation intensified by technology and globalization, education, culture, and social policy should prioritize affective education, critical judgment, and responsibility (Kester and Cremin, 2017). Beyond policy levers, targeted psychological interventions and cultural practices can strengthen resistance to violence and war and cultivate prosocial orientations (Cremin, 2015).

At the societal level, Fromm’s call for “humanized technology” underscores that technical development should not be guided solely by efficiency and control but must also foster relational connectedness, social responsibility, and mental health (Halperin et al., 2011). Stakeholders across sectors—industry, government, and academia—should co-develop technology ethics standards and assessment frameworks to ensure that socio-technical systems do not exacerbate social division or psychological estrangement but instead support inclusion and wellbeing (Shneiderman, 2020).

At the policy level, the strategic orientation should shift from defeating adversaries to making enmity unnecessary through coexistence and mutual gain. Fromm cautions that conceiving the end of war as victory or humiliation of the other is both insufficient and dangerous: if the objective is the opponent’s destruction, any ensuing “peace” will be short-lived (Bahador, 2012). Post-conflict arrangements must be designed for coexistence among parties that must continue to share the world. Peace strategies should avoid cornering the adversary, which tends to radicalize positions, empower hardliners, and convert moderates into hawks. The viable pathway is to recognize shared interests—survival, security, dignity, and economic wellbeing—and to replace zero-sum logics with win-win solutions. Rather than demonizing the “enemy,” policymakers should invest in dialogue and perspective-taking to elicit and affirm the other’s humanity (Krieg and Xu, 2023). Where interlocutors within the opposing camp still hold humane values or have not succumbed to fanaticism, they can become partners for engagement. This orientation aligns with contemporary conflict-resolution practices that emphasize empathy, narrative exchange, and trust-building (Kelman, 2005).